1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

"(1) While holding the office of Adult Literacy Officer, Nawabshah you had drawn Rs.16,40i0 through contingent bill for November, 1973 as honorarium for disbursement among the staff but Mr. Latif Ahmad Incharge Literacy Centre Faizul Uloom, Mr. Abdul Ahaz Khan. Incharge of Centre, Haji Nasiruddin, Mr. Muhammad Bux, Incharge Literacy Centre, Saudabad, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Incharge Adult Literacy Centre, New Society Centre and Mr. Muhammad Ramzan, Incharge Adult Literacy Centre, Shafiabad, denied to have received the said honorarium for the month of November, 1973 and thereby you misappropriated the amount of honorarium drawn in the names of T aforesaid persons. (2) You had drawn Rs.16, 400 through contingent bill for December, 1973 for the material purchased from shopkeepers for Literacy Centre but the shopkeepers, namely, Muhammad Arshad, Abdul Haleem, Muhammad Iqbal alleged that the vouchers for the contingent bill for December, 1973 have been tampered with and new items have been inserted in the vouchers already issued by each of them. You thereby used forged vouchers while drawing the amount of Rs.16,400 through contingent bill for December, 1973. (3) The programme of Adult Literacy was discontinued on 31‑1‑1974 and the office of Adult Literacy Officer was abolished on or about August, 1975 but you did not hand cover the charge of the office to Mr. Sachal Shah, District Education Officer, Nawabshah, or any other officer." In his reply to the show‑cause notice the appellant completely repudiated the above charges. However, he was given another show‑cause notice designated as final show‑cause notice in which the allegations mentioned in the earlier show cause notice were almost repeated. The appellant's reply to the later show‑cause notice was more or less as he had given to the first show‑cause notice. After considering the appellant's reply and giving him personal hearing, the competent authority found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly he was punished and penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon him. The appellant preferred departmental appeal against the said punishment and after wading for statutory period of 90 days he filed the present appeal. Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi on behalf of the appellant and Mr. lmdad Hussain on behalf of the official respondents submitted their arguments at the Bar. We also went through the case record. As stated above in his reply to the show‑cause notice the appellant has refuted all the three allegations made against him. His explanation for the first charge is that he had paid the amount of contingent charges which have been wrongly shown as honorarium, by a cheque. According to him, the payment was made to the Taluka Master of Nawabshah Taluka who had to disburse the amount amongst the Teachers specified in the show‑cause notice. As for the second charge the appellant has explained that since the purchases were made by individual schools themselves from the contingency amount placed at their disposal, the vouchers of such purchases were received by them and therefore if there were interpolations in the said vouchers, it was for the teachers of those schools to explain and the appellant could not be held responsible for the said interpolations. In reply to the third charge, the appellant has relied upon a photocopy of the letter of the District Education Officer, Nawabshah addressed to the Director of Schools, Education, which according to him shows that he was relieved of the charge in the afternoon of 31st August, 1975. Thus it is clear from the above explanation furnished by the appellant that he has not admitted the truth of the charges made against him. The question would then arise what could be the basis of the appellant's punishment (compulsory retirement) Obviously the appellant could not be punished unless the charges were proved against him and he was found guilty of the said charges. The show‑cause notice is absolutely silent as to whether any document used in proof of the charges was simultaneously or even afterwards supplied to appellant. It is an admitted position that no detailed enquiry was ever held nor the appellant was afforded opportunity to put in his defence and cross‑examine the witnesses to be examined in course of the enquiry. In a case like this the teachers who had allegedly not received the amount of contingency had to be examined to prove the charge of the non -payment. It was also necessary to show by evidence how the appellant was responsible for the alleged non‑payment even though the Taluka Masters had to make the actual disbursement of all the amount including that of contingency funds as per Sheet. Therefore, even the Taluka Master was important witness for proof of the above charge. Again for proving the second charge it was necessary to examine the shopkeepers who pointed out the interpolations made in the vouchers issued by them. As the alleged discrepancies were attributed to the appellant, further evidence was needed to prove that either the interpolations were in the hand of the appellant or were made. In his direction. As regards the third charge since it was not denied that the appellant was relieved of his duties on 31‑8‑1975, what then was the effect of his delivering certain record in his charge on a later date. The above could be done only by holding detailed enquiry through Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee. But no such enquiry was held. For above reasons we hold that the charges made against the appellant were not proved. Consequently the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the appellant was without foundation. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with no order as to costs. However, the case is remanded back to the Authorised Officer concerned who will proceed with the case afresh in accordance with the said Rules. He will first serve a charge‑sheet and statement of allegations on the appellant and appoint an Enquiry Officer to make a detailed enquiry into the charges contained in the said charge‑sheet and statement of allegations `and submit his report. On receipt of such report the Authorised Officer will take further action as envisaged by the said Rules. S.Q./169/Sr.S Case remanded.